A14212:216
A collection of certain learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zechariah…A collection of certaine learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zachary…
A collection of certain learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zachary Ursine; doctor and professor of divinity in the noble and flourishing schools of Neustad. For explication of divers difficult points, laid down by that author in his catechism. Lately put in print in Latin by the last labour of D. David Parry: and now newly translated into English, by I.H. for the benefit and behoof of our Christian country-manA collection of certaine learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zachary Ursine; doctor and professor of divinitie in the noble and flourishing schools of Neustad. For explication of divers difficult points, laide downe by that author in his catechisme. Lately put in print in Latin by the last labour of D. David Parry: and now newlie translated into English, by I.H. for the benefit and behoofe of our Christian country-man
Oxford: printed by Joseph Barnes, 1600Oxford: printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1600
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Sixthly, it is a shameful & gross he to affirm that the wicked are damned not for their ungodly sins, but for their incredulity. As if it were not registered & recorded in Scripture,1 Thieves, covetous persons, drunkards and such like shall not inherit the kingdom of God. As if Christ in his final judgement shall not say unto them, depart into hell fire, &c And as if forsooth incredulity were not the chief of sins. Nay we argue the clea•e contrary, that they are condemn ned for sin, because they are condemned for incredulity. For tell me what sin is more grievous ⟨p. 146⟩and he•ous then incredulity. Here our Apostate sporteth and toreth over childishly. Incredulity, saith he, is not now considered as it is in it self a sin: but only as it refuseth the means of salvation. For what is it, Sir, to refuse the means of salvation? Is not this a contempt of God? Is it not a most detestable sin & offence? verily incredulity is therefore a sin, because it refuseth salvation with the means thereof.
Sixtly, it is a shameful & grosse he to affirme that the wicked are dāned not for their vngodly sins, but for their incredulity. As if it were not registred & recorded in Scripture,1 Theeues, covetous persons, drunkards and such like shall not inherite the kingdome of God. As if Christ in his final iudgement shal not say vnto thē, depart into hell fire, &c And as if forsooth incredulity were not the chiefe of sins. Nay we argue the clea•e contrary, that they are cōdē ned for sin, because they are condēned for incredulity. For tell mee what sinne is more grievous ⟨p. 146⟩and he•ous then incredulitie. Heere our Apostata sporteth and toreth ouer childishly. Incredulity, saith he, is not now considered as it is in it selfe a sin: but only as it refuseth the meanes of saluation. For what is it, Sir, to refuse the meāes of saluation? Is not this a contempt of God? Is it not a most detestable sinne & offence? verely incredulitie is therefore a sinne, because it refuseth saluation with the meanes therof.